Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

U.S. Navy Patrol Craft Fires Warning Shots at Iranian Vessel

posted by martyb on Friday August 26 2016, @04:16PM   Printer-friendly
from the Boaty-McBoatInYourFace dept.

takyon writes:

CNN reports that a U.S. Navy patrol craft fired warning shots at an Iranian vessel:

A US Navy patrol craft fired three warning shots at an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps boat Wednesday after US officials said it had harassed that patrol craft, CNN has learned. Another US patrol craft and a Kuwaiti Navy ship were also harassed in the incident, which took place in the northern end of the Persian Gulf.

At one point, the Iranian boat came within 200 yards of one of the US Navy boats. When it failed to leave the area after the Navy had fired flares and had a radio conversation with the Iranian crew, the US officials said, the USS Squall fired three warning shots. Following standard maritime procedures, the Navy fired the three shots into the water to ensure the Iranians understood they needed to leave the immediate area.

Also at Reuters.

The incident occurred a day after four Iranian vessels made a "high speed intercept" of a U.S. warship.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
U.S. Navy Patrol Craft Fires Warning Shots at Iranian Vessel | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 39 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @05:42PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @05:42PM (#393596)

    Nothing to worry about. After all, Hillary solved that whole Iran thing for us anyway, didn't she? [hillaryclinton.com]
    No wait, Donald will make a bigger and better deal for us there, right? [washingtonpost.com]
    Oh, well Gary Johnson thinks we should have trade with Iran, the nuclear deal was wrong, and Iran sponsors terrorism but isn't a military threat. So he proposes to do.... what again? [wikipedia.org]
    And Jill Stein apparently thinks we should make love not war to Iran and they could be our friends. [presidential-candidates.org]

    Damn. Screwed four ways. Can't wait to see how these piggies wiggle their positions in light of this.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   1  

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by edIII on Friday August 26 2016, @06:46PM

    by edIII (791) on Friday August 26 2016, @06:46PM (#393632)

    I don't think you can make that statement about Jill Stein.

    “Hi I’m Jill Stein. I want to say a few words about why we must not go to war with Iran. We must use diplomacy to deal with the possibility of Iran being a future nuclear threat in the region.

    But we must also use diplomacy to deal with nuclear threats that already exist right now in the region, and around the world – because there’s no such thing as a survivable or a local nuclear war.

    That’s why we need to push for a nuclear-free Middle East and a nuclear-free world.

    And I also want to point out that the potential for war with Iran is just one flashpoint in a foreign policy landscape created by Republicans AND Democrats, which has been an overwhelming disaster.

    For decades now, our military interventions have cost countless lives, displaced millions, and provided powerful recruiting material for violent extremists.

    When it comes to conflicts in the Middle East, U.S. foreign policy is too often a major part of the problem, and not the solution.

    If I run for president, it will be to give voice to a very different foreign policy: one based on diplomacy, international law, and human rights.

    So If you want a foreign policy that creates allies not enemies; if you want to redirect trillions of dollars being wasted on immoral wars and occupations which make us less secure, not more secure; if you want to put our tax dollars towards critical, unmet needs here at home; and if you want a voice for a just and effective foreign policy in the 2016 Presidential election instead of war with Iran then sign up by clicking the link below.”

    Diplomacy, international law, and human rights is hardly singing love songs to hostile foreign countries. Diplomacy doesn't imply that, nor does international law, and only human rights *might* be interpreted that way. The latter could just as easily be interpreted as "sanctions until you stop abusing your own people".

    Sorry, I didn't read a love note there, and she is committed to a nuclear free Middle East. Hardly sounds like a push-over.

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @07:10PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @07:10PM (#393637)

      In other words, "false equivalency is false." News at 11.

    • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday August 26 2016, @10:14PM

      by fritsd (4586) on Friday August 26 2016, @10:14PM (#393708) Journal

      Women in politics, eh!

      Let's all give a small cheer to:

      and of course their counterparts in the Iranian government, dr. Mohammad Javad Zarif [wikipedia.org] and his negotiators.

      http://www.politico.eu/article/the-women-behind-the-nuclear-deal/ [politico.eu]

      Years of serious negotiations >> dicking around with armed boats in each others vicinity

    • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday August 26 2016, @11:12PM

      by butthurt (6141) on Friday August 26 2016, @11:12PM (#393731) Journal

      I don't see a huge gulf between "a foreign policy that creates allies not enemies" and "we should make love not war to Iran and they could be our friends." The latter has a pejorative tone but they're not 29 miles apart.

      • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday August 26 2016, @11:28PM

        by edIII (791) on Friday August 26 2016, @11:28PM (#393742)

        Yeah, I don't see creating allies as synonymous with making sweet love to them :)

        The statement implies to me that it would be better to create mutually beneficially relationships than it is to make enemies. Common sense to me.

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 26 2016, @10:24PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 26 2016, @10:24PM (#393713) Journal
    We don't have enough reminders that there are stupid people on the internet. I too yearn to vote for the perfect US president and my sole criteria will be how well their immense unicorn herds tame the Iranians.

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Saturday August 27 2016, @12:01AM

      by bob_super (1357) on Saturday August 27 2016, @12:01AM (#393761)

      Good trick to infiltrate: the Iranians always welcome unicorn herds, because of the cost-cutting that results on virginity tests.
      We need to ask our best friends across the gulf if they still have a few spare ones, or if they all got stoned after having contact with impure women rounded up by the morality police.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @11:37AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @11:37AM (#393912)

        You against men marrying cute female children, faggot?

        Old Testament allows it too.